Midrash su Numeri 5:27

(Numb. 5:11–12):¹Neither the Buber nor the traditional Tanhuma have a parashah, the beginning of which coincides with the beginning of Naso (Numb. 4:21-7:89) from the annual cycle. Such a parashah is also missing in other sources for the so-called “triennial cycle.” See B.Z. Wacholder, “prolegomenon,” in The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue, by Jacob Mann (“Library of biblical Studies”; New York: Ktav, 1971), p. LX. THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AND SAY UNTO THEM: IF ANYONE HAS HIS WIFE GO ASTRAY. Let our master instruct us: When someone wanted to accuse his wife (of infidelity), how did he accuse her?²Tanh., Numb. 2:1. Thus have our masters taught (in Sot. 1:4–5; 2:2–3.):³The Mishnah quotation has several variants from the standard text. See also TSot. 1:3-4. ONE ACCUSING HIS WIFE BROUGHT HER TO THE GREAT COURT WHICH WAS IN JERUSALEM, AND THEY WOULD ADMONISH HER IN THE WAY THAT THEY WOULD ADMONISH WITNESSES IN CAPITAL CASES< … >.⁴See Sanh. 4:5. Then afterwards: THEY WOULD BRING HER UP TO THE EASTERN GATE, TO < … > THE GATE OF NICANOR, WHERE THEY WOULD PURIFY THE LEPERS AND GIVE DRINK TO SUSPECTED ADULTERESSES< … >. A PRIEST WOULD BRING AN EARTHENWARE BOWL⁵Gk.: phiale; Lat.: fiala. AND PUT A HALF LOG OF WATER INTO IT FROM THE BASIN< … >. HE WOULD ENTER THE TEMPLE AND TURN TO HIS RIGHT. NOW A PLACE WAS THERE ONE CUBIT SQUARE WITH A MARBLE FLAGSTONE⁶Gk.: tabla (“tablet”); Lat.: tabula. THERE AND A RING FIXED IN IT. HE WOULD RAISE IT, TAKE DUST FROM UNDERNEATH, AND PUT IT UPON THE WATER, AS STATED (in Numb. 5:17): AND TAKING SOME OF THE DUST WHICH IS IN THE FLOOR OF THE TABERNACLE, THE PRIEST SHALL PUT IT INTO THE WATER. THEN HE WOULD WRITE THE SCROLL (in the wording of Numb. 5:19): AND IF NO ONE HAS SLEPT WITH YOU…. From here (Numb. 5:19) our masters have taught: When one opens capital cases, you begin with <the case for> acquittal. Then he writes further (in vss. 20–21): AND IF YOU HAVE GONE ASTRAY …, MAY THE LORD MAKE YOU A CURSE…. And so Solomon has said (in I Kings 8:31–32 // II Chron. 6:22–23): WHENEVER ONE SINS AGAINST HIS NEIGHBOR, AND HE GIVES HIM AN OATH FOR HIM TO SWEAR; THEN WHEN HE COMES FOR THE OATH BEFORE YOUR ALTAR IN THIS HOUSE, YOU WILL HEARKEN IN HEAVEN, TAKE ACTION, AND JUDGE YOUR SERVANT, IN ORDER TO CONDEMN THE WICKED SO AS TO SET HIS CONDUCT UPON HIS OWN HEAD AND JUSTIFY THE RIGHTEOUS SO AS TO RENDER TO HIM ACCORDING TO HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS. In the parashah on the adulteress the text says what is stated (in Numb. 5:23): THEN <THE PRIEST> SHALL WRITE DOWN THESE CURSES <IN A SCROLL>. (I Kings 8:32 // II Chron. 6:23:) YOU WILL HEARKEN IN HEAVEN, TAKE ACTION, AND JUDGE YOUR SERVANT, IN ORDER TO CONDEMN THE WICKED SO AS TO SET HIS CONDUCT UPON HIS OWN HEAD. (Numb. 5:27:) SO THAT HER BELLY SHALL DISTEND AND HER THIGH SHALL SAG. (I Kings 8:32/II Chron. 6:23:) AND JUSTIFY THE RIGHTEOUS SO AS TO RENDER TO HIM ACCORDING TO HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS. (Numb. 5:28): BUT IF THE WOMAN HAS NOT DEFILED HERSELF AND IS PURE, SHE SHALL BE GUILTLESS AND SHALL CONCEIVE SEED. If she was defiled, (according to Sot. 3:4; 5:1) SHE WOULD NOT HAVE FINISHED DRINKING BEFORE HER FACE TURNS GREEN, HER EYES PROTRUDE, AND SHE IS FULL OF <SWOLLEN> VEINS. THEN THE PRIEST SAYS: TAKE HER OUT, TAKE HER OUT, SO THAT SHE DOES NOT DEFLE THE TEMPLE COURT< … >. JUST AS THE WATER TESTS THE WOMAN, SO DOES THE WATER TEST THE MAN, SINCE IT IS STATED <TWICE> (in Numb. 5:22 & 24): AND IT (i.e., the water that causes the curse> SHALL GO< … >. AND IT SHALL GO <INTO HER … >. JUST AS SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO HER HUSBAND, SO IS SHE FORBIDDEN TO THE LOVER, SINCE IT IS STATED <TWICE> (in Numb. 5:13 & 14): SHE HAS DEFILED HERSELF< … >. SHE HAS DEFILED HERSELF.⁷The gemara ([Sot. 28a) explains these double usages more fully. Cf. also ibid., 26b. If, however, she drinks <the potion> and is found pure, then if she was barren, she is <now> visited (i.e., given conception).⁸Sot. 26a. <If> she used [to] bear ugly <children>, she <now> bears beautiful ones. <Instead of> dark <children>, she bears fair ones. <Instead of> short <children>, she bears tall ones. <Instead of> females, she bears males. Thus it is stated (in Numb. 5:28): BUT IF THE WOMAN HAS NOT DEFILED HERSELF AND IS PURE, SHE SHALL BE GUILTLESS AND SHALL CONCEIVE SEED. The Holy One said to Moses: Write a section on the adulteress so that she may know which name the priest blots out for her,⁹On the scroll of Numb. 5:23, where the priest put down the curses in writing and then rubbed them off into the bitter water. See also Sot. 2:4. what is to be her death, and how it will be made public.¹⁰Gk.: parresiazesthai. Where is it shown? {Where it is stated} [from what they have read on the matter] (in Numb. 5:12): IF ANYONE HAS HIS WIFE GO ASTRAY.

(Deut. 29:11:) “To enter into the covenant with the Lord your God....” Three covenants did the Holy One, blessed be He, make with Israel when they came out of Egypt, one when they stood before Mount Sinai, (one at Horeb,) and one here. But why did he make [a covenant] with them here? Because they had revoked the one which He had made with them at Sinai, when they said (of the golden calf in Exod. 32:4), “This is your god, O Israel.” For that reason He made [another covenant] with them at Horeb⁵The text should probably read: “With them here,” in accord with Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34. and established a curse over it for whoever would go back on his words. Now the word, enter (rt.: 'br), [can] only be in the sense of one who says to his companion, “May this curse come (rt.: 'br) upon you, if you go back on me in this thing.” And so you find that, when Israel provoked [the Holy One, blessed be He], and they went into captivity, what did Daniel say (in Dan. 9:11)? “And all Israel has transgressed (rt.: 'br) Your Torah [...] so the curse (alah) and the oath are poured down upon us.” Now alah can only be a curse,⁶Alah can also mean “oath” and “covenant.” as where it is stated (in Numb. 5:27), “and the woman shall become a curse (alah).” [This is] to teach you that just as one imposes an oath on the suspect adulteress, so the Holy One, blessed be He, imposed an oath upon Israel. But perhaps you will say, “Why all this bother?” It is not because I need you? Rather what shall I do to you, when I have already sworn to your ancestors, that I will never replace you and your children? It is therefore stated (in Deut. 29:12), “In order to establish you today as his people […] as he swore to your ancestors.” It [also] says (in Cant. 7:6), “a king is bound by his tresses.” Now bound [indicates] nothing except an oath. Thus it is stated (in Numb. 30:4), “[When a woman vows a vow to the Lord] and binds herself with a bond.” Therefore, He cannot break his oath. And so you find, when they sought to get rid of the yoke of His oath in the days of Ezekiel, it is written (in Ezek: 20:1), “some elders of Israel came to consult the Lord.” They said to him, “When the son of a priest buys a slave, is it legal for him to eat the terumah?”⁷The priestly tithe on produce. He said to them, “He may eat it.” They said to him, “If a priest returned and sold him to an [ordinary] Israelite, has he not left his jurisdiction?” He told them, “Yes.” They said to him, “We too have left the jurisdiction of [the Holy One, blessed be He]; are we not [now] like the all the [rest of the] world?” Ezekiel said to them (in Ezek. 20:32-33), “But that which you have in mind shall never come to pass, that should you say: let us become like the gentiles…. ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘surely I will [reign] over you with a powerful hand....’” He said to them, “As long as one has not sold [a slave], he is in his jurisdiction; and you have not been sold for a price.” It is so stated (in Is. 52:3), “For thus says the Lord, ‘You were sold for free, [and you shall be redeemed for no money].’” (Deut. 29:12:) “In order to establish you today as his people…,” so that I would not go back on the word that I swore to your ancestors. Deut. 29:13), “And not only with you [have I made this covenant and this oath].” But rather the generations that have yet to come were also there at that time, as stated (in vs. 14), “But with those who are [standing ('md)] here with us [today… and with those who are not here with us today].” R. Abahu said in the name of R. Samuel bar Nahmani, “Why does it say, ‘those who are [standing ('md)] here [...]; and those who are not here’ (without using the word, standing)? Because all the souls were there, [even] when [their] bodies had still not been created. It is for that reason [their] existence (literally, standing, rt.: 'md) is not stated here.” R. Eliezer said, “A curse will come upon Laban, because he said to Jacob (in Gen. 31:30), ‘Why did you steal my gods?’ It (i.e., such an idol) could not save itself from theft. [So] how could it save others? But Israel is not like that, as they serve the Holy One, blessed be He, about whom it is stated (in Deut. 10:21), “He is your praise, and He is your God, [who has done these great and awful things for you that your own eyes have seen].” He [also] watches over Israel like a father who watches over his son, as stated (in Ps. 121:4), “Behold the One keeping Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.”

(Deut. 29:11 [12]:) TO ENTER INTO THE COVENANT WITH THE LORD YOUR GOD, EVEN THROUGH HIS OATH. Three covenants did the Holy One make with Israel: one when they came out of Egypt, one when they stood before Mount Sinai, {one at Horeb,} and one here.⁷Tanh., Deut. 8:3. But why did he make <a covenant> with them here? Because they had {cooked} [revoked] the one which he had made with them <on Sinai>,⁸This identification appears in the parallel from the traditional Tanhuma. when they said (of the Golden Calf in Exod. 32:4): THIS IS YOUR GOD, O ISRAEL. For that reason he made < another covenant> with them on Horeb⁹The text should probably read: “With them here,” in accord with Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34. and established a curse over it for whoever would go back on his words. Now the word, ENTER (rt.: 'BR), <can> only be in the sense of one who says to his companion: May this curse come (rt.: 'BR) upon me, if I go back on this word. And so you find that, when they provoked the Holy One, they went into captivity. What did Daniel say (in Dan. 7:11)? AND ALL ISRAEL HAS TRANSGRESSED (rt.: 'BR) YOUR TORAH [….] SO THE CURSE (alah) AND THE OATH ARE POURED DOWN UPON US. Now alah can only be a curse,¹⁰Alah can also mean “oath” and “covenant.” as where it is stated (in Numb. 5:27): AND THE WOMAN SHALL BECOME A CURSE (alah). <This is> to teach you that, just as one imposes an oath on the suspect adulteress, so the Holy One imposed an oath upon Israel. But perhaps you will say: Why all this bother? It is not because I need you? Rather what shall I do to you, when I have already sworn to your ancestors, that I will never change anything for you and your children? It is therefore stated (in Deut. 29:12 [13]): IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH YOU TODAY AS HIS PEOPLE […,] <AS HE SWORE TO YOUR ANCESTORS, TO ABRAHAM, TO ISAAC, AND TO JACOB>. It also says (in Cant. 7:6 [5]): THE KING IS BOUND BY THE TRESSES. Now no one is bound except by an oath. Thus it is stated (in Numb. 30:4 [3]): <WHEN A WOMAN VOWS A VOW TO THE LORD> AND BINDS HERSELF WITH A BOND <….> Therefore, one cannot break his oath.

Similarly, in the verse And he blotted out every living substance which was upon the face of the ground, both man and cattle (Gen. 7:3). He mentioned man first, because man was the first to sin, and after that he refers to beasts and creeping things. Likewise, since Scripture states: And they smote the men that were at the door with blindness, both small and great (ibid. 19:11), they smote the least important ones first and then the greater ones. Likewise, in accordance with the verse I will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast, man was punished first and then the beast. Another illustration is in the verse Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword (Deut. 13:16). He smote the inhabitants of the city with the sword, and then he slew the cattle. Similarly, And her belly shall swell (Num. 5:27) is followed by And her thighs shall fall away. That is, the part of the body that sinned first was punished first. Is it not logical to conclude that if retribution is exacted first from the one who commits an evil deed first, then the reward for good deeds, whose reward is far greater, is dispensed according to the same rule.

(Bamidbar 5:15) "Then the man shall bring his wife to the Cohein": According to the Torah, the man brings his wife to the Cohein. But they said: He is given two Torah scholars (as chaperones) on the way so that he not live with her. R. Yossi says: Her husband is trusted with her, a fortiori, viz. If he is trusted (to be alone) with his wife when she is a niddah, though the punishment for cohabiting with her is kareth, how much more so is he to be trusted with her when she is a sotah, cohabitation with whom is not liable to kareth! They replied: How much more so (is he not to be trusted with her!) If he is not liable to kareth he will not be deterred! Variantly: (The instance of niddah is no refutation). He may be trusted (to be alone with her) when she is a niddah, for she is permitted to him afterwards, but not with a sotah, who may not be permitted to him afterwards. According to the Torah, the husband brings his wife, it being written "and the man (i.e., her husband) brings his wife to the Cohein." "and he shall bring her offering for her": Every offering devolving upon her. These are the words of R. Yehudah. The sages say: Any offering that permits her to him, such as that of a zavah and that of a woman who has given birth, she brings of what is his and it is not deducted from her kethubah. And any offering that does not permit her to him, such as that for taking a Nazirite vow or desecrating the Sabbath, she brings of what is hers and he deducts it from her kethubah. "one-tenth of an ephah of meal": Why state ("of meal")? For it would follow, since the offering of a sinner comes for a sin and this comes for a sin, that since the first comes only of fine flour, this, too, is to be only of fine flour; it is, therefore, written "meal." "barley": Why? For it would follow, since the offering of a sinner comes for a sin and this comes for a sin, then this, too, should come only from wheat; it is, therefore, written "barley." R. Gamliel said: Scribes, allow me, and I will interpret it symbolically, viz.: Just as her deeds were those of a beast, so, her food shall be that of a beast." He shall not pour oil upon it": If he does, he transgresses a negative commandment. Would you say, then, that just as he transgresses (a negative commandment) with his oil so, he transgresses with his frankincense? Would you say that? (I would say that) he transgresses with oil, for he cannot remove it, but not with frankincense, for he can remove it." It is, therefore, written "He shall not pour oil upon it" and "He shall not place frankincense upon it" — so that if he places either oil or frankincense upon it he transgresses a negative commandment. Why is that? "For it is an offering of rancors." "rancors": two rancors: rancor against her and rancor against her husband (and) just as there is rancor below, there is rancor Above. "an offering of memorial": I hear (from this, a "memorial" [i.e., a "reminder"] both of) merit and of liability; it is, therefore, written (afterwards, to negate this) "a reminder of sin." All of the "memorials" in the Torah are for the good, except for this one, which is for punishment. These are the words of R. Tarfon. R. Akiva says: This one, too, is for the good, as it is written (Ibid. 28) "And if the woman had not been defiled (in this concealment), and she be clean, then she shall be absolved (of the blighting waters), and she will sow seed." This (verse) tells me only "a reminder of sin." Whence do I derive (that it is also) a reminder of merit? From "an offering of memorial" — in any event. R. Yishmael says: "an offering of memorial" — general; "a reminder of sin" — specific. (This is an instance of "general-specific," (where the resolution is) — "There obtains in the general only what is stated in the specific," (i.e., that it is a memorial of sin and not of merit.) For, (if not for this principle) the "contender" could argue. Which attribute (of the L-rd) is stronger? That for good or that for punishment? Certainly, that for good (viz. Shemot 34:7) If the attribute of punishment diminished (that of good), it would be a reminder of sin, but since the attribute of good is stronger, it follows that it should be a reminder of merit. This is an attribute of the Torah: Whenever a "general-specific" (application) defeats an a fortiori (application [as in the above]) — If both can be satisfied, the a fortiori (application) is not to be defeated. How can both be satisfied (in our instance) without the a fortiori (application) being defeated? (As follows:) If she had been defiled, then punishment visits her immediately. And if she has a certain merit, that merit may suspend (the operation of the bitter waters) for three months so that the fetus is recognizable. These are the words of Abba Yossi b. Channan. R. Eliezer b. Yitzchak of Kfar Darom says: For nine months, as it is written (Ibid. 28) "and if she is clean, then she will sow seed. Just as "seed" connotes nine months, so, merit (can suspend for) nine months. R. Yishmael says: Twelve months. And even though there is no proof for this, there is intimation of it in (Daniel 4:24-26) "O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you … All this befell King Nevuchadnezzar. At the end of twelve months, etc." R. Shimon b. Yochai says: Merit does not suspend (the operation of) the blighting waters. For if you say that it does, you "dilute" the (deterrence of the) bitter waters before all women, and they will drink them; and you cast an evil name upon the clean ones who drank. For people will say: They were really defiled, but their merit suspended (the operation of the waters). Rebbi says: I can determine (whether or not she was clean). If she were clean, in the end, she will die, as all men do, and if she had been defiled, she will die as depicted by Scripture, viz. (Bamidbar 5:27) "and her belly will swell and her thigh will fall." R. Shimon says: Who is going to inform all of the standersby that she will die and her belly will swell and her thigh will fall? But (if she were guilty), then as soon as she drank, her face would turn green and her eyes would bulge, and her veins would swell in her, and they would say: Hurry and take her out so that she not defile the azarah (the Temple court)!

… the prophets of Jerusalem were the first to sin, as it says “…for from the prophets of Jerusalem has falseness emanated to the whole land.” (Jeremiah 23:15) So too they were punished first and the rest did not escape, as it says “And a curse shall be taken from them…” (Jeremiah 29:22)

"and I shall smite": I might think, through an angel or through a messenger; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 29) "and the L rd (Himself) smote every first-born" — not through an angel or a messenger. "and I smote every first born": even from different places. Whence do I derive (the same) even for the first-born of Egypt who were in other places? (From Psalms 136:10) "He smote Egypt through their first-born" (connoting, even if they were not in Egypt). Whence do I derive (the same for) the first-born of Cham and Cush? (viz. Genesis 10:6) From (Psalms 78:51) "And He struck every first-born in Egypt, the first fruit of their strength in the tents of Cham." "from man until beast": The initiator of the transgression was struck first. Similarly, (Genesis 7:23) "And all that existed on the face of the earth was blotted out — from man to beast, etc." Similarly, (Exodus 14:4) "And I will be honored through (the downfall of) Pharaoh and his entire host." Similarly, (Devarim 13:16) "Smite the inhabitants of that city … and its cattle." Similarly, (Numbers 5:27) "and her belly ('first in the transgression') will swell, and her thigh will fall." Here, too, "And I shall smite every first-born in the land of Egypt from man until beast." The initiator of the transgression was struck first. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If in His measure of punishment — the lesser (measure) — the initiator of the transgression is smitten first, how much more so in His measure of beneficence — the greater (measure) — (is the initiator of the mitzvah rewarded first)!

(Bamidbar 5:27) "and her belly will swell and her thigh will fall": This tells me only of her belly and her thigh. Whence do I derive (the same for) the rest of her limbs? From "then the blighting waters will enter into her." — Let only this be stated, then. Why need it be added "and her belly will swell and her thigh will fall"? From that limb whence the sin began, from that limb will the punishment begin! Similarly, (Bereshit 7:23) "And He blotted out every being upon the face of the ground — from man until beast." He who began the sin, from him will the punishment begin! Similarly, (Ibid. 19:11) "And the men at the entrance of the house they smote with blindness, from small to great." They who began the sin, from them the punishment began. Similarly, (Shemot 14:4) "and I will be honored through (the downfall of) Pharaoh and all of his host." Pharaoh began the sin — from him the punishment began. Similarly, (Devarim 15:16) "Smite shall you smite the inhabitants of that city by the sword. Lay it waste and all that is in it, etc." Whence the sin began, the punishment began. Here, too, "and her belly will swell and her thigh will fall." From that limb whence the sin began, from it the punishment began. Now does this not follow a fortiori. If re the attribute of punishment, the weaker attribute — the limb whence the sin began, from it the punishment begins, how much more so re the attribute of benefaction, the stronger attribute, (the limb whence the good began, from it the reward begins!) "and the woman will be a curse in the midst of her people": They will curse through her — "May it happen to you as it happened to her!" "for an oath" (see verse 21): They will swear by her — ("I swear that if, etc.,) may it happen to me as it happen to her!" And thus is it written (Isaiah 65:15): "And you (the wicked) will leave your name as an oath for My chosen ones" — whence we learn that the wicked are an oath for the righteous. And whence do we derive that the righteous are a blessing for the wicked? (Jeremiah 4:2) "And in it (Israel) will nations bless themselves, and in it will they be praised," and (Bereshit 12:3) "And there will bless themselves in you (Avram) all the families of the earth." And it is written (Ibid. 48:20) "And he blessed them on that day, saying: In you (Ephraim and Menasheh) will Israel bless, etc."